Important information for theists.

[Darwinian]

Although theists are more than welcome to join in with debates and discussions on these forums you must remember that this is primarily a forum for like minded individuals.

Therefore I have prepared a short list of things that some theists tend to say which can detract from the discussion and/or are simply irrational, rude, annoying and disrespectful.

Please keep the following list in mind when posting and we should all get along very nicely.

You are asked to avoid..

• Telling them that since there isn't a god they might as well kill themselves now.
• Telling them that since there isn't a god they might as well kill other people.
• Telling them they don't believe because an evil power is controlling their lives.
• Trying to make your belief appear more truthful by TYPING IN CAPITALS.
• Telling them that they don’t believe because something bad happened in their lives.
• Telling them you know God exists because the Bible says so and that the Bible is true because God said so.
• Insisting that they really do believe in God but are afraid to admit it.
• Ending your posts with “god loves you” or “I’ll pray for you.”
• Arguing that evolution isn’t true by simply pointing to a site such as AnswersInGenesis or being so ignorant as to say "it's just a theory".
• Quoting Psalm 14:1
• Asking them to open their hearts and give Jesus a chance.
• Telling them they are going to hell.
  

When talking to atheists

Most theists have a rather naive view of what an atheist actually is. So, before you start debating with atheists it's best to be armed with a bit of knowledge.

An atheist is simply someone who is not a theist. Commonly, atheists don't believe in a god or gods. Most typically this takes the form of the god of the Bible, the Koran etc.

Other than that there is no particular reason why atheists should have anything else in common.

Here are a few things that atheists are not..

• Someone who hates God. You can't hate something you don't believe exists.
• In league with the Devil or Demons.
• Rebelling against religion or God.
• Under the control of evil spirits.
• Immoral, Emotionless, Heartless, Closed Minded, Cold etc.
• Someone who lacks beliefs, ideas and philosophies.
  

What is an agnostic?

Being an agnostic does not mean that you don't know if there is a god or not but instead means that it is impossible to know if a god exists or not and so you remain undecided. The word translates as a (without) gnostic (knowledge).

The distinction is a subtle one but important.

It is therefore possible to be an agnostic atheist. Basically there are two variants for this definition.

Agnostic (weak) atheist

This is the most typical kind of atheist. An agnostic atheist will admit that there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a god but chooses not to believe. This is largely but not exclusively due to the lack of evidence.

Gnostic (strong) atheist

Strong atheism is a position that certain types of gods definitely do not exist. An atheist may be gnostic towards the non-existence of some types of gods yet an agnostic atheist towards other types of gods.

From http://www.strongatheism.net:

"Strong Atheism is the proposition that we should not suspend judgment about the non-existence of a god or gods. More extensively, it is a positive position against theistic values, semantics and anti-materialism, a rational inquiry in the nature of religious thought, a new way of thinking about religious and spiritual issues."

What is an apatheist?

Apatheism is not having a belief in god and couldn't care less if a god exists or not.

[Brick-top]

But religious preachers are funny.

I demand you take back these rules.

[EvidenceVsFaith]

If you think these rules are the right thing to have then that's fine....

But I personally don't think an atheist would have any reason to be offended by a load of stuff they know...just isn't true...

However it IS interesting to argue against religion EVEN IF their opinions are very backward in some cases....because after all there's always a POSSIBILITY that us atheists might enlighten them in someway or atleast help them develop their curiosity and drive to question.

Thats my opinion anyway.

[Darwinian]

It's not that atheists get offended by remarks such as these, we are far too intelligent and enlightened

It's just that after a while they get really boring and stifle any chance for a decent discussion.

You should go over to the facebook discussion about God and see some of the nonsense that goes on there..

http://www.new.facebook.com/topic.php?ui...opic=12311

[EvidenceVsFaith]

(5th October 2008 18:28)Darwinian Wrote:  It's not that atheists get offended by remarks such as these, we are far too intelligent and enlightened

It's just that after a while they get really boring and stifle any chance for a decent discussion.

You should go over to the facebook discussion about God and see some of the nonsense that goes on there..

http://www.new.facebook.com/topic.php?ui...opic=12311

Yeah I agree that it CAN as you put it: 'get really boring and stifle any chance for a decent discussion.'

But I do think its ALSO important for us to practice our arguments against fundies and creationists...and really refine them....because they are the ones who are the most at risk and need the most help. Because 'they actually believe what they say they believe'...'good people do good things and bad people to bad things - but for a good person to bad things; it takes religion' etc, etc, etc.

And of course over the internet you are quite safe.

Providing you don't invite any psycho-fundies round to your house lol.

So I think both causes are important to some extent....Obviously debating with other atheists strengthens our evidence against god and we learn about scientific stuff....talking to intelligent less-fundie theists also helps us because we have a good discussion....but also talking with more fundamental theists also helps (IMO) because we can practice trying to help somewhat (however small) contribute to abolishing the slavery of faith. I think that more reasonable theists are closer to our level of understanding than fundies....SO.....the challenge is going to be trying to - to put it bluntly - de-convert the fundies.

[Darwinian]

I do tend to agree. After all, what we are doing now is simply 'preaching to the converted', so to speak.

On the old forum there used to be a few fundamentalist Christians, the sort who thought it was their destiny to convert all us heathens and it was a real challenge trying to get them to see your point of view.

So, in that sense it really does help you to sharpen up your argument and reaffirm why we think the way we do and perhaps help us to understand why they do what they do.

[EvidenceVsFaith]

(6th October 2008 06:53)Darwinian Wrote:  I do tend to agree. After all, what we are doing now is simply 'preaching to the converted', so to speak.

On the old forum there used to be a few fundamentalist Christians, the sort who thought it was their destiny to convert all us heathens and it was a real challenge trying to get them to see your point of view.

So, in that sense it really does help you to sharpen up your argument and reaffirm why we think the way we do and perhaps help us to understand why they do what they do.

Yeah that's what I'm atleast TRYING to say...I don't know whether I'm very good at explaing

I wouldn't say a genuine atheist can preach though...I wouldn't call it preaching; de-converting is not the same as converting because it's not done through brainwashing...it's well thought out arguments...and it's loss of supersition - not planted superstiton. And what's preachy about well thought out reasoning that encourages questioning beliefs? And if done right will almost certainly lead to de-conversion and atheism. Teaching questioning is the opposite of preaching IMO...Preaching is just brainwashing: "This is right and don't you question it....it IS right."....and that's the opposite of questioning...of reason.

I know you put; 'preaching to the converted' in quote marks....but I don't think the word preaching should be used in context with what is in fact encouraging questioning of beliefs that if done right will almost certainly lead to de-conversion.

I think if fundies thought we were in fact 'preaching' to them and only doing the equivilent of what they're doing but 'preaching' non-faith instead of faith...I think it would not only be incorrect...but also would give them the wrong idea and it might encourage them to ignore what we're saying (even more than normally).

[Darwinian]

Preaching to the converted is just a saying and like the bible is not meant to be taken literally.

If a friend were trying to convince me of the Membrane theory of multiple Universes I would use the same phrase and it wouldn't have any religious connotations, although the root of the phrase has.

Like it or not, religion is ingrained in our history, society and language and as an old git I have grown up with phrases like these, giving little or no thought to their literal meaning.

Perhaps I should have said, "re-enforcing jointly held opinions" but I don't think it has quite the same pithy ring to it.

[EvidenceVsFaith]

(6th October 2008 13:22)Darwinian Wrote:  Preaching to the converted is just a saying and like the bible is not meant to be taken literally.

If a friend were trying to convince me of the Membrane theory of multiple Universes I would use the same phrase and it wouldn't have any religious connotations, although the root of the phrase has.

Like it or not, religion is ingrained in our history, society and language and as an old git I have grown up with phrases like these, giving little or no thought to their literal meaning.

Perhaps I should have said, "re-enforcing jointly held opinions" but I don't think it has quite the same pithy ring to it.

Even though WE know it's not literal I think a LOT of religious people we talk to would take it literally. And in my experience atleast; this common misconception can cause a LOT of problems when debating with a theist. Particularlly when debating with a fundie.

I'd say: "Reasoning with the converted"

Which of course I think if done AND RECIEVED (I can't stress that enough) logically...leads to de-conversion.

[Dotard]

(6th October 2008 13:22)Darwinian Wrote:  Preaching to the converted is just a saying and like the bible is not meant to be taken literally.

If a friend were trying to convince me of the Membrane theory of multiple Universes I would use the same phrase and it wouldn't have any religious connotations, although the root of the phrase has.

Like it or not, religion is ingrained in our history, society and language and as an old git I have grown up with phrases like these, giving little or no thought to their literal meaning.

Perhaps I should have said, "re-enforcing jointly held opinions" but I don't think it has quite the same pithy ring to it.

Your post hit home. I too have grown up with these phrases and still to this day say things like "God willing", "bless you", "God only knows" and "Merry Christmas" with no thoughts about literal meanings. They're only sayings...apothegms, proverbs, oracular utterances.